Malone v. Hinman

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

February 7, 2017

Jacobi P. Malone Plaintiff- Appellantv.Robert Hinman, Individually and in his official capacities; City of Little Rock, a municipal corporation and public body corporate and politic; Stuart Thomas, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Police, Little Rock Department Defendants-Appellees

Submitted: September 20, 2016

Appeal
from United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas - Little Rock

Before
RILEY, Chief Judge, MURPHY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

SMITH,
Circuit Judge.

Jacobi
P. Malone appeals the district court's[1] grant of summary
judgment to Little Rock Police Officer Robert Hinman, Little
Rock Police Chief Stuart Thomas, and the City of Little Rock
(collectively, "defendants") on Malone's
various constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
Officer Hinman's alleged use of excessive force in
shooting Malone. Viewing the facts in the light most
favorable to Malone and evaluating the reasonableness of
Officer Hinman's actions "from the perspective of a
reasonable officer on the scene, " Graham v.
Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989), we conclude that
Officer Hinman is entitled to qualified immunity.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's grant of
summary judgment to Officer Hinman, Chief Thomas, and the
City of Little Rock.

I.
Background We recite the facts in the light most
favorable to Malone as the non-moving party. See id.
at 388.

At
approximately 2:00 a.m. on the morning of July 16, 2011,
Jacobi Malone, then 18 years old, was walking back to his car
parked in the Rivermarket area of downtown Little Rock,
Arkansas. Malone approached a crowd of 40 or 50 people near
his parked car. In the crowd, Malone saw a former schoolmate
in the midst of an escalating disturbance. Malone's
former schoolmate pulled out a pistol and pointed it at the
crowd. Malone tried to "defuse the situation." He
approached the young man with the "intention" to
"push the gun down towards the ground, " but,
unfortunately, the gun discharged. When the gun discharged
the first time, Malone's hand was on the young man's
arm. The gun then discharged "one or two more
times" before Malone "snatched" the gun from
the young man. Hearing the gunshots, the crowd scattered.
Malone started running, too, with the pistol now in his hand.

Meanwhile,
Officer Hinman patrolled downtown Little Rock on his bicycle
when he "heard what sounded like a disturbance and saw a
large group of approximately forty to fifty people in the
parking lot and on the sidewalk in front of the parking lot
in the 200 block of East Markham." As Officer Hinman
approached the crowd on his bike, he "heard one gunshot
fired." Officer Hinman observed that once the first shot
was fired, the crowd dispersed in all directions. He
subsequently observed Malone fleeing on foot while holding
the gun.

Officer
Hinman says that he yelled "stop" to Malone but
that Malone continued to run. Malone, however, did not hear
anyone yell at him to "stop." Malone was
experiencing "an adrenaline rush, " and he did not
"hear anything." Officer Hinman "knew that
[Malone] was running toward where Officer [Steve] Montgomery
and several other individuals were located." Officer
Hinman drew his weapon and fired multiple rounds at Malone,
striking Malone in the arm, back, leg, and neck. The bullet
that hit Malone in the neck paralyzed him from the chest
down. When Officer Hinman fired his gun, Malone was two to
three feet from Officer Montgomery.

Officer
Montgomery and Officer Wade Neihouse, who were present at the
time of the shooting, testified that three to five seconds
elapsed between the first shot and shots fired by Officer
Hinman at Malone. Officer Hinman estimated that "ten
seconds elapsed from the time [he] heard the first shot until
the time [he] fired [his] service weapon as Mr. Malone was
fleeing."

Malone
filed suit against the defendants for violations of his
federal and state constitutional rights. He sought relief
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth, Fifth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution; the Arkansas Constitution; and the common-law
tort of assault and battery. Specifically, he alleged
excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment against
Officer Hinman; maintenance of a widespread custom of
permitting excessive force against Chief Thomas and the City
of Little Rock; and assault and battery against Officer
Hinman. The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The
district court granted the defendants' motion. The
district court found that Officer Hinman was entitled to
qualified immunity on Malone's constitutional claims
because Officer Hinman's actions were objectively
reasonable under the circumstances. The court cited the short
period of time that elapsed-less than ten seconds-between
when Officer Hinman heard the gunfire and when he shot
Malone. The court emphasized that while Malone was running
away from Officer Hinman at the time that Officer Hinman shot
him, Malone was running toward Officer Montgomery. The court
also noted the crowd's presence when the shots were fired
and that Malone held a gun as he ran. Although the court
found it "disconcerting" that Officer Hinman had
given inconsistent testimony about whether Malone turned to
fire at him and found it "unclear" whether Officer
Hinman saw Malone shoot into the crowd, it concluded that
such details did not "change the constitutional analysis
because no genuine issues of material fact
exist." The court also determined that Malone's
claims against Chief Thomas and the City of Little Rock
failed for lack of evidence because Malone did not rebut
Chief Thomas's testimony that Officer Hinman was trained
properly and that excessive-force incidents are properly
investigated and handled. The court dismissed Malone's
state-law claim without prejudice and dismissed the federal
claims with prejudice.

II.
Discussion

On
appeal, Malone argues that the district court erred in (1)
granting summary judgment based on qualified immunity to
Officer Hinman on Malone's excessive-force claim, and (2)
granting summary judgment to Chief Thomas and the City of
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.